What do you know about Islam?

[YmirGF]

May be so, and that could be for many reasons, not necessarily because Islam is a religion of conquest while Buddhism is not. (I'm not saying that Buddhism is so).

Indeed there could be many reasons for the Muslim conquests, however the reality is that most were done simply to extend the faith. In the weirdest perversity we have witnessed, Muslim conquerors went on their bloody rampages, time and time again because they felt compelled by their teachings and had a god given right to do so. God was on their side and consequently they could do no wrong. In effect, the ends justified the means. As long as Islam grew stronger, any lesser crimes (sins) would, in theory, be forgiven.

Muslims also smile and say but many people converted of their own free will, but quite frankly considering the alternatives one can only conclude that many of these conversions were solely made to save their skin and assets. It was a pragmatic choice rather than endure life as a dhimmi or second class citizen.

For example, Muslims love to wax on about the incredible heights of civilization in Andalusia however the pretext for that Muslim invasion was paper thin. The reasons struck all the right notes in the doublespeak of the Muslim psyche. One could scarcely expect a more instantaneous call to action by entering a rowdy beer hall at 3 am telling the assembled patrons that a group of uncouth types was outside and rudely claiming that their mothers wore army boots and dressed the patrons funny. The "request" to help regain the lower Spanish peninsula could also be likened to waving a rather large red flag in front of an angry bull. Perhaps that is how the custom started.

As for your contention that Islam no longer conquers by the sword, for the most part, that is technically true, however it is also true that all too many Muslim still use fear and any weapons they can get their little hands on to "strike fear into the hearts" of those who have the temerity to oppose them. PEW research indicates that approximately 10% of all Muslims polled stated they were in favor of violent conflict. The reality is that if indeed there are 1.3 billion Muslims on Earth, that translates into at least 130,000,000 people. Hardly comforting numbers. A further 20% said they were somewhat sympathetic to the cause of the radicals. Now we are talking very large numbers. How is it that so very many Muslims misunderstand their "religion of peace"? The point is, they don't, they just take submission very seriously.

 

[A-ManESL]

A-ManESL, agreed that buddhists must have done violence, but to my understanding they have no history of violence to spread their faith.

BTW A-ManESL, the link you provided is that of which to purchase the book, would be helpful if you get me the content of those with valid proofs.

A-ManESL, should i trust a book seeing its cover page?

lol...no of course not, you cant trust a book by a cover. What I suggest is that you purchase the book, if you really want to investigate in detail (or I can send you an online copy, which I have, if you want). You can then draw your own conclusions whether the proofs presented in it are "valid" or not. Although, I am surprised that you have read about the history of Buddhism and havent encountered violent measures of Mongolian Buddhists, (or of the 5th Dalai Lama) in the name of their faith.

Alternatively I can supply quotations as you wish, but they may present a biased picture as my quotations about Hinduism do above. Also in that case, a different thread is advisable.

However please note that I do not claim that this book is correct or wrong in all respects, and hence just said that this may be relevant.

You might find this online article worth reading too.

Regards.

 

[Badran]

Indeed there could be many reasons for the Muslim conquests, however the reality is that most were done simply to extend the faith. In the weirdest perversity we have witnessed, Muslim conquerors went on their bloody rampages, time and time again because they felt compelled by their teachings and had a god given right to do so. God was on their side and consequently they could do no wrong. In effect, the ends justified the means. As long as Islam grew stronger, any lesser crimes (sins) would, in theory, be forgiven.

But how can you be sure of that? It actually seems more realistic that they were led by people seeking more political power. God doesn't give us a right to fight people or to convert them by force. All these things are also mentioned in the Quran, i don't know why people choose to ignore it, and concentrate on the bad things that have been done. It's not up to question wether or not we are allowed fight people, the only case we are allowed to fight people, as clearly stated, is if they aggress. It's not Islam's fault that some muslims don't abide by that.

Muslims also smile and say but many people converted of their own free will, but quite frankly considering the alternatives one can only conclude that many of these conversions were solely made to save their skin and assets. It was a pragmatic choice rather than endure life as a dhimmi or second class citizen.

Well, it's easy to assume that people were so weak and just gave up. People are not puppets, it's hardly convincing that all people just converted because they had to. I'm not saying that there weren't forced conversions, but i'm saying it doesn't have to be all, or most cases.

For example, Muslims love to wax on about the incredible heights of civilization in Andalusia however the pretext for that Muslim invasion was paper thin. The reasons struck all the right notes in the doublespeak of the Muslim psyche. One could scarcely expect a more instantaneous call to action by entering a rowdy beer hall at 3 am telling the assembled patrons that a group of uncouth types was outside and rudely claiming that their mothers wore army boots and dressed the patrons funny. The "request" to help regain the lower Spanish peninsula could also be likened to waving a rather large red flag in front of an angry bull. Perhaps that is how the custom started.

I'm really not trying to make excuses for anything done by muslims, all i'm saying is that coming to conclusion that Islam is an evil religion that advocates violence is wrong and unfair.

As for your contention that Islam no longer conquers by the sword, for the most part, that is technically true, however it is also true that all too many Muslim still use fear and any weapons they can get their little hands on to "strike fear into the hearts" of those who have the temerity to oppose them. PEW research indicates that approximately 10% of all Muslims polled stated they were in favor of violent conflict. The reality is that if indeed there are 1.3 billion Muslims on Earth, that translates into at least 130,000,000 people. Hardly comforting numbers. A further 20% said they were somewhat sympathetic to the cause of the radicals. Now we are talking very large numbers. How is it that so very many Muslims misunderstand their "religion of peace"? The point is, they don't, they just take submission very seriously.

So, the smaller number understand it correctly, while the other hundreds and hundreds of millions of muslims world wide don't?

Submission is to god, on your own terms, not to people. As for the number of people that support violence, may be a lot in favor, but not all of them would do it themselves, in other words, they don't feel bad about what the radicals do, but still they wouldn't do it themselves, not necessarily for ethical reasons.

But regardless, still the majority doesn't meet these attributes. The majority are peaceful people. And i said what reasons i think are the cause for the number of Muslims that would support violence. So, i can't see how one would come to such conclusions about Islam being violent.

 

[Badran]

any idea about those reasons? while there are cruel people all over the world and in all religions, why islam is in top position with huge margin for conquests, while buddhism is not even considered in the list? not saying islam promotes violence, but surely there should some reason.

I don't know if Islam is indeed on the top or not, i don't think so, but may be. However, very easily that could be because there period of power lasted long.

Or in other words, are you asking me why were they that good at it? or are you asking why did they conquer so many lands? the answer for both would be related to there power, i can't see what does that have to do with the subject.

 

[nameless]

Another Brahmin King Pushyamitra Shung proved to be more crual towards Buddhism. He destroyed all Bodh Vihars from Patliputra to Jalandhar. He declared a reward of 100 golden Mudras to anyone who killed and showed the beheaded skulls of Buddhists.

" King Pushyamitra who adored and sacrificed to the Devas, destroyed in the 2nd century B.C., many Sanghrahmas and killed the Bhikshus who dwelt therein."--[The Life and Teachings of Buddha - Anagrika Dharmpal

these are yet to be confirmed, there exists mixed opinions about this.
The accuracy of the Buddhist texts that record Pushyamitra’s persecution of Buddhists has been debated by historians.

Contribution to Buddhism by Sungas

However to many scholars, Sunga kings were seen as more amenable to Buddhism and as having contributed to the building of the stupa at Bharhut.[24]
An inscription at Bodh Gaya at the Mahabodhi Temple records the construction of the temple as follows: "The gift of Nagadevi the wife of King Brahmamitra" So then this further means that the Sungas were in support of Buddhism. Another inscription reads: "The gift of Kurangi, the mother of living sons and the wife of King Indragnimitra, son of Kosiki. The gift also of Srima of the royal palace shrine."[25][26]

Decline of Buddhism in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During the 7th century a Brahmin King Shashank inflicted severe atrocities on Boddhs. He demolished Boddh Vihar of Buddh Gaya and raised it to the ground. He uprooted & burnt the Bodhi Vrikchha where Buddha is said to have been enlightened.

" Sasanka, the Raja of Bengal, proved in the middle of 7th century A.D. an inveterate enemy of Buddhism and endeavoured a number of times to uproot Bodha tree."--[The Life and Teachings of Buddha - Anagrika Dharmpal]

The only mention of the persecutions of Buddhists by Shashanka occurs in the memoirs of Yuan Chwang. Chwang (popular called Hieun Tsang) visited India during the latter part of the reign of Emperor Harshavardhana, who fought King Shashank to avenge the murder of his brother Rajyavardhana, so it was political and has nothing to do with religion.

It is not at all fair to say war between shashanka and rajyavardhana was religious. Shashanka waged war against the Maukhari king Grahavarman (the son-in-law of the Pusyabhuti king Prabhakaravardhana), during which time Grahavarman was killed by Devagupta. At this point Rajyavardhana, a Buddhist, and the eldest son of Prabhakarvardhana (who had become king of Sthaneshwer) proceeded against Devagupta and defeated and killed him. However Rajyavardhana himself was killed in an encounter with Shashanka.

It is also known that after being vanquished by Harshavardhana, Shashanka continued to rule parts of coastal Bengal and Orissa. If he were a pathological hater of the Buddhists, he would have tried to exterminate Buddhism in those areas as well. However, no suchindications are available.

During 16th century the king of Sinhali iseland, Raja Jai Singh, just to please SHAIVA Sadhus, killed so many Buddhists within 4-5 years that there remained none in his kingdom.

would like to get sources for these.
When googled, only managed to get wikipedia link, and it has nothing to say about buddhist persecution, also came to know that he was chief of mugal aurangazeb, so should have done numerous miserable things.

" The Buddhist literature was completely destroyed by the Hindus during Hindu revival headed by Shankracharya."--[The Mahabodhi Journal, Feb-1927]

No idea about when happened this, even if it happened, buddhists must have allowed to do so. It is well known fact that shankara was an outstanding debator. When Buddhists monk involved in debate with shankara, they accepted defeat, so stopped practicing and teaching buddhism. Yes, shankara opposed buddhism but in a peaceful manner.
The same happened to hinduism, after debating with monks belonging to various sects by pointing out mistakes, he brought them all under same umberalla.

Similarly the Islamic conquests were actually done for political and non-religious reasons.

i disagree. Why those sikhs and hindus who accepted islam were allowed to live and who reject was killed brutally?

Mata Gujri, Mati Das being sawn in half, Sati Das burnt alive, Dayala boiled alive, Subeg Singh and and Shahbaz Singh being crushed under a giant wheel thing

"According to James Scurry, a British officer, who was held captive along with Mangalorean Catholics, 30,000 of them were forcibly converted to Islam. The young women and girls were forcibly made wives of the Muslims living there"

A-ManESL, how can this be political?

 

[LuisDantas]

So, the smaller number understand it correctly, while the other hundreds and hundreds of millions of muslims world wide don't?

That is neither necessarily true, Badran, nor really significant, unfortunately.

The fact is that the minorities do not need approval from the majority to commit (or support) violent acts. It is a good thing that most, let's say 80%-95% of Muslims, are quite opposed to commiting violence. It is however very troubling that the remaining few are in fact so many, so active, so determined and ultimately so unchallenged and so unlikely to ever come back from their violent ways.

It is hardly as simple as "Islam teaches violence". But there are some things that much be recognized and addressed, such as the ultimately unrelenting disposition of Muslim society, which is very resistant to social change in a world that just keeps changing around it. Islam took form about 1400 years ago and in many respects it was an impressive advance for the time. But it really seems to have a hard time accepting that the choices and even moral values that made sense at the time are hardly the same as today. It is way too set on preserving tradition and keeping a passive atitude towards religious authority until the Mahdi and God itself intervene.

And in the meanwhile, more uncontroversial matters such as the very real, very significant social troubles of divorced Muslim women, of homosexuals who live in Muslim countries, of Atheists and Secularists who find it a bit less than respectful to be called tools of the devil every now and then, do not receive anywhere near the attention they deserve. From an outsider's perspective such as mine, it really seems that Islam spends way too much time trying to prove that it is faithful to tradition, respectful of God's will, and so much wiser and more deserving than all those fools who fail to convert.

That is a worldview of questionable wisdom at best, not in the least because it leads to literally millenia of arguing and ill feelings even among Muslims. Does anyone really expect either Shias or Sunnis to ever "repent" being "in the wrong"? I don't. Yet there is little perspective of mutual acceptance, either. Passionate words and casual accusations are par of the course even from otherwise peaceful and moderate Muslims. That is a dangerous sign.

 

[Caladan]

Yes, i understand what you're saying. For the first wars, Muslims were not the strong side, and most of these wars were fighting enemies, Quraysh were serious enemies and directly fought Muhammad (pbuh) and his message. As for the the conquests that follows and the conflicts and so on. I honestly believe that any religion and people in general, when they are in power, has often led to the same results. constant wars and interference in other countries are a constant attribute until today associated with countries in power.

However this is a thread about Islam. most of us are well aware that other dogmas such as the Christian one have also been used in global conquests, slavery etc. just like Islam, which is the topic of this thread, Fatima asked us what we know about Islam, so lets talk.
from your post, I can almost conclude that you believe that Islam should hold no political power? because any religion in such position according to you results in political strife, however Islam by its very nature is political. there are alternatives of course, there are leaders in Muslim nations who work hard in toning down the radical religious elements in their societies and try to maintain links with the developed world.

 

[kejos]

However this is a thread about Islam. most of us are well aware that other dogmas such as the Christian one have also been used in global conquests, slavery

Christianity forbids even resistance, let alone conquest. It forbids the taking of slaves. Those who have done such things have not been disciples of Christ. Authentic Muslims, otoh, have dismissed these commands and murdered millions, and made many slaves, too.

 

[Caladan]

Christianity forbids even resistance, let alone conquest. It forbids the taking of slaves. Those who have done such things have not been disciples of Christ. Authentic Muslims, otoh, have dismissed these commands and murdered millions, and made many slaves, too.

That is off topic, you are welcomed to start a thread about it, where many of us will be more than happy to tackle the infamous 'no true Scotsman' argument.

 

[kejos]

That is off topic

If Islam is using other religions as an excuse for its behavior, it surely is not.

the infamous 'no true Scotsman' argument.

That can be proved a fallacy.

Let's stick to Islam, eh?

 

[Badran]

That is neither necessarily true, Badran, nor really significant, unfortunately.

The fact is that the minorities do not need approval from the majority to commit (or support) violent acts. It is a good thing that most, let's say 80%-95% of Muslims, are quite opposed to commiting violence. It is however very troubling that the remaining few are in fact so many, so active, so determined and ultimately so unchallenged and so unlikely to ever come back from their violent ways.

It is hardly as simple as "Islam teaches violence". But there are some things that much be recognized and addressed, such as the ultimately unrelenting disposition of Muslim society, which is very resistant to social change in a world that just keeps changing around it. Islam took form about 1400 years ago and in many respects it was an impressive advance for the time. But it really seems to have a hard time accepting that the choices and even moral values that made sense at the time are hardly the same as today. It is way too set on preserving tradition and keeping a passive atitude towards religious authority until the Mahdi and God itself intervene.

And in the meanwhile, more uncontroversial matters such as the very real, very significant social troubles of divorced Muslim women, of homosexuals who live in Muslim countries, of Atheists and Secularists who find it a bit less than respectful to be called tools of the devil every now and then, do not receive anywhere near the attention they deserve. From an outsider's perspective such as mine, it really seems that Islam spends way too much time trying to prove that it is faithful to tradition, respectful of God's will, and so much wiser and more deserving than all those fools who fail to convert.

That is a worldview of questionable wisdom at best, not in the least because it leads to literally millenia of arguing and ill feelings even among Muslims. Does anyone really expect either Shias or Sunnis to ever "repent" being "in the wrong"? I don't. Yet there is little perspective of mutual acceptance, either. Passionate words and casual accusations are par of the course even from otherwise peaceful and moderate Muslims. That is a dangerous sign.

You know what the problem is, i agree with most of what you said, so i don't even understand what are we talking about. My only problem here, is trying to blame certain things on Islam, as if these things are exclusive to Islam, and trying to point out the actions of minority, as if they represent the majority. (not you of course, you are not doing that).

I don't deny there are a lot of problems that needs addressing and solving, or that the attitude of some Muslim about their religion is arrogant and leads to bad results.

I also don't deny the problems between some Muslims sects. However, once again, in reality for the majority of Muslims, these problems are all quarrels. The average muslims don't walk around looking for other muslims from other sects to fight with, or to kill them. These are numbered incidents. I however have absolutely no problem with any Muslims sect, they are muslims, they hold different ideas than i do, i believe these ideas are wrong, and i hope they can see that, just like they think i hold wrong ideas, and they hope i see the truth, that's it.

 

[kejos]

You know what the problem is, i agree with most of what you said, so i don't even understand what are we talking about. My only problem here, is trying to blame certain things on Islam, as if these things are exclusive to Islam

They are, pretty well. Hindus won't hurt a fly. No other scripture than the Qur'an advocates violence.

 

[Badran]

However this is a thread about Islam. most of us are well aware that other dogmas such as the Christian one have also been used in global conquests, slavery etc. just like Islam, which is the topic of this thread, Fatima asked us what we know about Islam, so lets talk.
from your post, I can almost conclude that you believe that Islam should hold no political power? because any religion in such position according to you results in political strife, however Islam by its very nature is political. there are alternatives of course, there are leaders in Muslim nations who work hard in toning down the radical religious elements in their societies and try to maintain links with the developed world.

I don't mind talking about Islam Caladan, i just mind the childish things that are being said, just like the post above mine here.

If we want to address problems that face Muslim societies, i'd be more than happy (though, i don't think that's at all the aim of this thread), and i'd be happy to share my views on what i think Islam's role in the government should be and so on, i just want to clear this defensive position i'm in. Islam, most certainly, Is not responsible for awful things that everybody from various religions do, and trying to blame that on Islam is wrong, and this is not the thread to do so. This thread, as i understand, is for people to come, say their knowledge of Islam's teachings, so that if there were any misconceptions, fatima was going to clear them.

 

[Tiapan]

Intelligent men and women once thought the world was flat, the sun orbited the earth, there were only 4 elements. Being intelligent does not indicate truth. I cannot argue against some one who believes in a god(s) except to suggest they do some reading on entropy. Islam is another social construct that allows social cohesion in a particular culture, particularly where poverty and low educational opportunity are common. Just like the Philippines is more catholic than the Vatican.

I see a simplistic superficial commonality amongst most traditional Abrahamic religions. They are all variations on a theme. Fear the god is usually number one for self indulgence, then be nice to others... but in the following 6000 instances beat the hell out of your neighbor. The Quran is extremely vague and can be interpreted regularly to prove white is black and black is white in many places simultaneously, hence the concept that the lay are totally incompetent at interpretation so must rely on skilled scholars for correct interpretation. Proof of its foolishness. The prime prerequisite is that the god person hands down the law, the law mysteriously takes on mythical power, and must be right. Believe in god well yeah, so must believe this neat book, circular reasoning poor intellectual analysis = religion. Islam=Christianity=Judaism just different brands of same soap powder.

Cheers

 

[Caladan]

You know what the problem is, i agree with most of what you said, so i don't even understand what are we talking about. My only problem here, is trying to blame certain things on Islam, as if these things are exclusive to Islam, and trying to point out the actions of minority, as if they represent the majority. (not you of course, you are not doing that).

There are a few issues with this. one is that many of us on this forum have been criticizing the problems of other dogmas, political sectors, etc. for years, and likewise we are doing it when it comes to Islam. and another issue is that the talks of 'minority' and 'majority' are too obscure, the political reality today is that many Muslim nations have deep social problems, many of which are unsolvable and have simply been recognized as a reality, furthermore, what you refer to as a minority, which it might very well be has terrorized people across the globe in complex networks and cells, terror attacks by Islamist elements have strike in the heart of Europe in the 2000's, in the heart of America, in South America, in India, Russia, East Asia and the Pacific, across the middle east, North Africa, today both coalition forces and forces of Islamic governments are in the middle of a fight with radical Islamists. its a political reality, that today no one can ignore, it is no longer confined to the lands of Islam in which Islamist groups can oppress women, execute apostates and homosexuals, murder political rivals, and indoctrinate children to hate, today terrorism is a global phenomena.

 

[Caladan]

I don't mind talking about Islam Caladan, i just mind the childish things that are being said, just like the post above mine here.

If we want to address problems that face Muslim societies, i'd be more than happy (though, i don't think that's at all the aim of this thread), and i'd be happy to share my views on what i think Islam's role in the government should be and so on, i just want to clear this defensive position i'm in. Islam, most certainly, Is not responsible for awful things that everybody from various religions do, and trying to blame that on Islam is wrong, and this is not the thread to do so. This thread, as i understand, is for people to come, say their knowledge of Islam's teachings, so that if there were any misconceptions, fatima was going to clear them.

I think I understand what you are saying, however, 1. Fatima has sent this thread in a downward spiral herself, and secondly I really hope that Muslim members are not expecting lip service from us, we were asked what we know about Islam, well many of us have experienced and know alot, and this is a great chance to share it and DEBATE it as well, as this thread WAS created in the DEBATE section. I think we already had alot of educational threads about Islam, its tenets, etc. well many members want to upgrade this level of debate, we DO REALLY want to talk about what we know and experience from Islam.

 

[Badran]

I think I understand what you are saying, however, 1. Fatima has sent this thread in a downward spiral herself, and secondly I really hope that Muslim members are not expecting lip service from us, we were asked what we know about Islam, well many of us have experienced and know alot, and this is a great chance to share it and DEBATE it as well, as this thread WAS created in the DEBATE section. I think we already had alot of educational threads about Islam, its tenets, etc. well many members want to upgrade this level of debate, we DO REALLY want to talk about what we know and experience from Islam.

Fatima was responding to someone who i think said that muslims want to eradicate Israel..... May be she should have ignored it, okay.

As for debate, i don't mind debate, nor do i expect any special treatment. What i do mind however, is discussing the same thing whenever Islam is mentioned. I prefer we stick to the particular point of this thread, and let's debate it as much as you want. If i have to respond to every claim that Islam is responsible to the evil in the worlds, and always end up on the defensive, not one single chance of a constructive debate/discussion is left. It's no wonder many Muslims don't share their opinions on lots of stuff, i guess they grew tired of it.

 

[Caladan]

Fatima was responding to someone who i think said that muslims want to eradicate Israel..... May be she should have ignored it, okay.

Fatima has done much more than that.

As for debate, i don't mind debate, nor do i expect any special treatment. What i do mind however, is discussing the same thing whenever Islam is mentioned. I prefer we stick to the particular point of this thread, and let's debate it as much as you want.

What did you have in mind?

If i have to respond to every claim that Islam is responsible to the evil in the worlds, and always end up on the defensive, not one single chance of a constructive debate/discussion is left.

I agree on that part. I'll just give you my two cents. many members here have had to withstand alot of ill-treatment from what unfortunately were Muslim members, we have been daily preached about the scientific miracle which is the Qur'an, members of the LGBT community, who are some of our most informed and valued RF members have had to listen to radical agendas which range from their evil sinful nature to the support of execution of gays, feminist members have had to listen to misogynistic arguments in the name of Islam, so many members simply return the favor, I understand its not constructive, but it does not spring ex-nihilio. I too, wish we could stick to the pure political, religious, and social issues in the most accurate ways, with the thought of international politics on mind first, before the scores we have to settle.

It's no wonder many Muslims don't share their opinions on lots of stuff, i guess they grew tired of it.

The issue is that many Muslim members preach, without realizing that people in our societies have deemd preaching obsolete, many of us have our stomach turn from the religious issues in our own societies, so having another religion (which is not very popular) being preached to us does get the worst side out of people. many of us YARN for Muslim members to share their opinions, just without the religious zeal, because its simply not working on us, we do not want self-righteousness, we want concrete first hand information, we WANT to discuss it, and debate it, without having to hear that the dogma of the party we are debating with is beyond error.

 

[Badran]

Fatima has done much more than that.

Sure later on. I meant that's where it started, so it wasn't here intention to debate that part.

What did you have in mind?

Well, what i understood of this thread, is that it's talking about the understanding that people have of the teachings of Islam.

I agree on that part. I'll just give you my two cents. many members here have had to withstand alot of ill-treatment from what unfortunately were Muslim members, we have been daily preached about the scientific miracle which is the Qur'an, members of the LGBT community, who are some of our most informed and valued RF members have had to listen to radical agendas which range from their evil sinful nature to the support of execution of gays, feminist members have had to listen to misogynistic arguments in the name of Islam, so many members simply return the favor, I understand its not constructive, but it does not spring ex-nihilio. I too, wish we could stick to the pure political, religious, and social issues in the most accurate ways, with the thought of international politics on mind first, before the scores we have to settle.

Okay, i agree.

The issue is that many Muslim members preach, without realizing that people in our societies have deemd preaching obsolete, many of us have our stomach turn from the religious issues in our own societies, so having another religion (which is not very popular) being preached to us does get the worst side out of people. many of us YARN for Muslim members to share their opinions, just without the religious zeal, because its simply not working on us, we do not want self-righteousness, we want concrete first hand information, we WANT to discuss it, and debate it, without having to hear that the dogma of the party we are debating with is beyond error.

I agree again, i'm just explaining that for example, as i'm sure you already know that, i'm just saying it, that what happens, is that some of the muslims who get exposed to this attack, has never participated in such arrogant behavior. I know you already said that you're in favor of discussion ahead of settling the score, so i agree. (just saying this part for those who prefer to settle the score).

By the way, i read some of the old threads, and i've seen what you're talking about, and seen it in threads that are new, so i know it's pretty provocative.

 

[Kerr]

Thanks for sharing kerr

Im happy to see that almost everyone know the basis of Islam, good thing to know



Then what are you waiting for ? Go search for the right answer if you're interested in knowing

At this point in my life I am to be honest not that interested, I just tried to make a fair assessment. What I know is mostly what I get from Muslims here. Of course, I could learn from the media, but I know they do not give the best picture (for example, if they rapport about a number of terrorist acts made by extremists and don´t talk about the man who spends his time involved in charity and is a good person, and happen to be Muslim, it is easy to get the idea that Muslims are extremists that blow up innocent people).